In modern medical science, with its focus
on cellular and molecular function, the differences between species far outweigh
the similarities. In fact, many drugs have measurably different effects in men
and women—how much greater are the differences between humans and other animal
species? Not only does testing on animals give misleading results about the
risks of drugs in people, but it can also delay discovery of useful human
therapies. Penicillin is harmful to guinea pigs, rats, and hamsters.

The good news is that modern medical science offers many alternative research
methods that more accurately predict human results. In vitro testing on human
cell cultures, computer modeling, epidemiological analysis, and clinical studies
can all be used to develop and test new therapies. 95 percent of medical schools
have shut down their animal laboratories and rely instead on cadavers,
simulators, and observation to train medical students on what they really need
to know: how the human body works.

Many cancers can be cured today—if you are a mouse. Unfortunately, humans are
still waiting for cancer cures that will work for them. Decades of animal-based
laboratory tests have given us some treatments for mice who are genetically and
otherwise manipulated to grow tumors. But if we are seeking medical advances for
humans, are animal-based experiments really the most effective way to spend our
limited resources?

One woman said it to me this way: "If my child was dying, and an animal
experiment might find the cure that saves her life, then I wouldn't hesitate to
sacrifice those animals." Most of us would make enormous sacrifices to save our
children, and that's completely understandable. But to think only in terms of
"my child vs. a mouse in a laboratory" misses the essential question we should
be asking: Does testing on animals actually yield useful results? I'd like to
share a personal story that changed my beliefs about animal testing.

You may remember the drug thalidomide. It was widely prescribed in many
countries in the early 1960s for several purposes, one of which was to alleviate
morning sickness in pregnant women. The drug caused severe birth defects, and
thousands of children were born with shortened limbs and flipper-like hands.
Thalidomide was animal-tested before it was used in people, and no adverse
effects were reported. Even after the human tragedy started to unfold,
subsequent animal testing of thalidomide found similar birth defects in only a
few species of animal, and only at very high doses. Simply put, animal tests of
thalidomide were not predictive of the effects in humans.

I narrowly escaped being one of the thalidomide babies myself. My mother was
traveling in the U.K. during the first months that she was pregnant with me. She
had severe morning sickness, so she visited a doctor who prescribed a
medication. She took the pills for several weeks, and only when she returned
home to the U.S. did she hear about thalidomide on the news. Mom recently told
me about her reaction: "My heart just sank when I heard the news story. I had
never asked for the name of the medication I took, and I was certain that it was
thalidomide. I still had the bottle and was relieved to discover it was a
different drug. I never could have forgiven myself if I had done this to you."

After I found out how lucky I am to be whole and healthy, I started to wonder
just how useful animal testing really is. Historically, experiments on animals
have been given credit for much more than what they actually helped us learn.
And in modern medical science, with its focus on cellular and molecular
function, the differences between species far outweigh the similarities. In
fact, many drugs have measurably different effects in men and women—how much
greater are the differences between humans and other animal species? Not only
does testing on animals give misleading results about the risks of drugs in
people, but it can also delay discovery of useful human therapies. Penicillin is
harmful to guinea pigs, rats, and hamsters. (It was a human trial that opened
the door to the discovery of antibiotic drugs.) The painkiller Vioxx was
withdrawn from the market after it was found to increase risk of heart attacks
and strokes and was found to be responsible for many deaths. Vioxx was tested in
several species of animals, and the results suggested that the drug would have
heart-protective properties. All new medications and therapies must eventually
be tested in human clinical trials, and results from animal testing can give a
false sense of security about potential risks to human patients. The FDA admits
that an astounding 92 percent of all drugs that test safe and effective in
animals fail in human clinical trials. And half of the 8 percent of drugs that
appear successful in human tests have to be withdrawn after they are marketed
because of adverse reactions.

The good news is that modern medical science offers many alternative research
methods that more accurately predict human results. In vitro testing on human
cell cultures, computer modeling, epidemiological analysis, and clinical studies
can all be used to develop and test new therapies. 95 percent of medical schools
have shut down their animal laboratories and rely instead on cadavers,
simulators, and observation to train medical students on what they really need
to know: how the human body works.

Fair Use Notice: This document may contain copyrighted material whose use has
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).
If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.